Ron, I just dont see how one can vote for a pro-abort because of other moral issues.

I would like to go through this very carefully to define this and to use examples.

Here are the only reasons I can come up with that would be acceptable reasons for voting for a pro-abort. Please give me any other example that you think I have missed.

A) The voter is completely ignorant and does not know the infallible teaching of the church when it comes to abortion.
B) All candidates and/or VIABLE candidates are equally pro-aborts and the person has voted based on other moral issues
C) All candidates and/or VIABLE candidates are NOT equally pro-aborts and the person has voted for the least affective pro-abort
D) All candidates and/or VIABLE PRO-LIFE candidates have positions on other moral issues with the equal weight of abortion, such as someone who is against abortion, but is committed to drop a nuke on an entire country.

Catholics that I know, vote for pro-aborts because they want open borders, or socialized medicine. These are moral issues that are not infallibly taught by the church.
thanks

Once again, I ask that examples be given because its much easier to understand rather than a high top level ideology.

"I just dont see how one can vote for a pro-abort because of other moral issues."

First, on the point about errors in non-infallible teachings, the USCCB document 'Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship' essentially says that you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate, but Cardinal Burke says you cannot. So whichever one you agree with, you are disagreeing with the other. I take it then, that you believe the USCCB errs in their non-infallible teaching, and Cardinal Burke does not.

"Catholics that I know, vote for pro-aborts because they want open borders, or socialized medicine. These are moral issues that are not infallibly taught by the church."

The moral weight of an issue is not the same as whether or not it is infallibly taught. The Church has infallible teachings on lesser issues as well as weighty issues.

Examples of cases where one could vote for a pro-abortion candidate:

1. The pro-abortion candidate's party is generally pro-life, and electing him would give his party a majority in the Senate. The party in the majority has a lot more power to pass legislation and block legislation. If you vote for the pro-life candidate in a situation in which a party that is generally pro-abortion would take power, they can block all pro-life bills, even if the bill has enough votes to pass.

2. The election is for an office which has no influence over the abortion issue. You would then be morally obligated to vote for whichever candidate will do the most good and the least harm. The pro-abortion candidate does little or no harm on that issue, since his office has no influence over the issue. E.g. a position on the school board:
A. candidate is pro-abortion, but wants to make a series of reasonable improvements to the school
B. candidate is pro-life, but wants to make a series of harmful changes to the school system

3. The pro-abortion candidate favors additional restrictions on abortion, which have a chance of passing; this candidate has a track-record of being able to pass bills. The pro-life candidate has no track-record of passing (or even voting for) pro-life bills, and his proposed legislation (e.g. banning all abortion) has no chance of passing.

4. The pro-abortion candidate would not change current laws on abortion. The pro-life candidate would not be able to change current laws on abortion. The pro-abortion candidate has the better position on other weighty issues.

The Magisterium has an infallible teaching on what makes any act moral or immoral: the three fonts of morality. The act of voting is subject to the same basic principles of ethics as every other human act.

To be moral, an act must have:
1. only good in the intention
2. only good in the moral object
3. the reasonably anticipated bad consequences must not outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences.

If all three fonts of morality are good, the act is moral.

Voting for a candidate who favors legalizing or keeping legal an intrinsically evil act is not necessarily immoral. That vote is not necessarily intrinsically evil, it does not necessarily have a bad intention, and circumstances vary.

We are morally obligated not to vote for a pro-life candidate IF the vote would to more harm than good.

Now it may be -- in my judgment it is the case -- that generally a vote for a pro-life candidate does more good and less harm (despite the failings of that candidate) than a vote for a pro-abortion candidate. I almost always vote pro-life (when such a candidate is running).

But it simply is not true that we can never morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

The moral weight of an issue is not the same as whether or not it is infallibly taught. The Church has infallible teachings on lesser issues as well as weighty issues.

Ok, I understand your here on the general concept and the words I have used to explain myself were general so I will stick to the specific example.
Doesn't abortion carry more moral weight than "immigration or Socialized health care vs our current health care"? - Thats the real question I did not mean to imply that infallible teaching, no matter what the teaching, has greater moral weight over ever non-infallible teaching.
I would like a comment on the moral weight of the example above, and while we are at it, please give an example of infallible teaching that has lesser moral weight of fallible teaching.

Examples of cases where one could vote for a pro-abortion candidate:

How is #1 acceptable knowing that it would hurt the pro-life cause?

#4, how can the voter know what can and cant be done? All things are possible with God, and isnt being a pro-abort in itself really show the credibility of the moral compass of the person? How can they be trusted to care about any other humane issue if they support the brutal murder of innocent humans.

And thanks for the examples, they really help in showing HOW to apply the concepts to real life and in my opinion, help guide the reader to better understand the limited situations where voting for a pro-abort is acceptable, rather then them walking away thinking they can just vote for a pro-abort for any reason...but I still think we need more clarification on "More Weighty Issues" - this needs to be defined better and not left up tp the subjectivity of the average Catholic who votes pro-abort.

1. The pro-abortion candidate's party is generally pro-life, and electing him would give his party a majority in the Senate. The party in the majority has a lot more power to pass legislation and block legislation. If you vote for the pro-life candidate in a situation in which a party that is generally pro-abortion would take power, they can block all pro-life bills, even if the bill has enough votes to pass.
How is #1 acceptable knowing that it would hurt the pro-life cause?

2. The election is for an office which has no influence over the abortion issue. You would then be morally obligated to vote for whichever candidate will do the most good and the least harm. The pro-abortion candidate does little or no harm on that issue, since his office has no influence over the issue. E.g. a position on the school board:
A. candidate is pro-abortion, but wants to make a series of reasonable improvements to the school
B. candidate is pro-life, but wants to make a series of harmful changes to the school system

3. The pro-abortion candidate favors additional restrictions on abortion, which have a chance of passing; this candidate has a track-record of being able to pass bills. The pro-life candidate has no track-record of passing (or even voting for) pro-life bills, and his proposed legislation (e.g. banning all abortion) has no chance of passing.

4. The pro-abortion candidate would not change current laws on abortion. The pro-life candidate would not be able to change current laws on abortion. The pro-abortion candidate has the better position on other weighty issues.[/quote]

Ok, I understand your here on the general concept and the words I have used to explain myself were general so I will stick to the specific example.
Doesn't abortion carry more moral weight than "immigration or Socialized health care vs our current health care"? - Thats the real question I did not mean to imply that infallible teaching, no matter what the teaching, has greater moral weight over ever non-infallible teaching.
I would like a comment on the moral weight of the example above, and while we are at it, please give an example of infallible teaching that has lesser moral weight of fallible teaching.

Ethics is based on the three fonts of morality.
Suppose that the voter has only good intentions.
The act of voting for a person is not intrinsically evil.
So the morality of the act is then determined by the reasonably anticipated good and bad consequences. If the weighty issue of abortion has little effect on an election (e.g. voting for school board), and another issue such as the school budget or the school curriculum has a big effect in an election, then the reasonably anticipated good consequences of the budget and the curriculum outweigh the reasonably anticipated bad consequences of having a board member who is pro-abortion.

It is not the general weight of an issue in the abstract, that determines the morality of the third font, but rather the reasonably anticipated good and bad consequences.

It would help the pro-life cause to have a pro-life party in power. So the good consequences outweigh the bad. How could you vote for a pro-life candidate, reasonably anticipating that your vote would put a pro-abortion party in power, causing more harm than good? It is always a sin to act, with the reasonable anticipation that your act will do more harm than good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGiftOfLife

#4, how can the voter know what can and cant be done? All things are possible with God, and isnt being a pro-abort in itself really show the credibility of the moral compass of the person? How can they be trusted to care about any other humane issue if they support the brutal murder of innocent humans.

The moral teachings of the Church REQUIRE you to act based on the reasonably anticipated good and bad consequences of your action. It would be a sin for you to act in the reasonable anticipation that your act would do more harm than good. This is not an open question. This is the definitive teaching of the Church on morality. Three fonts of morality: if any one is bad, the act is a sin. If all three are good, the act is morally permissible.

You cannot commit an act with one or more bad fonts and then say that God will turn your sin into good. You cannot substitute your own version of ethics for what the Church teaches.

It is simply not true that all persons who support legalized abortion are bad people who cannot be trusted on any issue. It is also not true that all pro-life politicians can be trusted on all issues. Some persons who are pro-choice still do much good on other issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGiftOfLife

And thanks for the examples, they really help in showing HOW to apply the concepts to real life and in my opinion, help guide the reader to better understand the limited situations where voting for a pro-abort is acceptable, rather then them walking away thinking they can just vote for a pro-abort for any reason...but I still think we need more clarification on "More Weighty Issues" - this needs to be defined better and not left up tp the subjectivity of the average Catholic who votes pro-abort.

It is not the weight of the issue in the abstract that matters, but the voter's reasonable anticipation of the consequences of an action. The Magisterium does in fact say that it must be left up to the voter to make a judgment of the prudential order on these matters. The faithful have a role to play in the world, in trying to make the world a better place. The Magisterium does not simply tell us what to do.

Ok, I fully understand and know that, IF a person is acting on what they THINK are good intentions then the person themselves are not sinning. In most cases I would call this ignorance on their part.

Also Ron, I would ask that you do some research on the term PRO-CHOICE and read about how it was created to take the focus off abortion. It a tool designed to promote abortion and I would ask everyone here to not use it, as it plays into the hands of the pro-aborts.

Ok, I fully understand and know that, IF a person is acting on what they THINK are good intentions then the person themselves are not sinning. In most cases I would call this ignorance on their part.

No, it is not sufficient to have good intentions. A correct choice of actions is also needed.

A person could have invincible ignorance about a particular sin, and so avoid culpability for an act that is objectively immoral. Or a person could have substantial ignorance, not realizing that an act is gravely immoral, but perhaps having some limited perception that the act is wrong, and therefore have reduced culpability.

The fact that a politician supports making or keeping an intrinsically evil act legal does not imply that we may never vote for that politician. The morality of the act of voting depends on the three fonts of morality. And, generally speaking, a vote for a person is not an intrinsically evil act.